An Act Including Accessory Apartments Without Affordability Restrictions In The Calculation Of The Threshold For Exemption From The Affordable Housing Appeals Procedure.
Summary
HB 7031 amends Connecticut’s affordable housing appeals statute, commonly known as the “8-30g” law, by changing how municipalities qualify for an exemption from the appeals procedure. Under current law, a municipality can be exempt if at least 10% of its dwelling units are made up of certain categories of affordable or otherwise qualifying housing. This bill adds accessory apartments (also known as accessory dwelling units or ADUs) to that calculation, even when those apartments do not have affordability restrictions, and removes the prior exclusion that prevented certain accessory apartments built or permitted after January 1, 2022 from being counted toward the total number of dwelling units.
The practical effect is to make it easier for municipalities to reach the 10% threshold and therefore become exempt from the affordable housing appeals process. The bill keeps the existing qualifying categories in place, including assisted housing, CHFA-financed units, deed-restricted affordable units, mobile manufactured homes in qualifying parks, and resident-owned mobile manufactured home parks, but expands the pool of units that can count toward the exemption threshold by including all accessory apartments. The change takes effect July 1, 2025 and amends section 8-30g(k) of the general statutes.
The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history appears supportive, at least at the committee level, as the bill received a Joint Favorable Substitute vote in the Housing Committee by a 13-5 margin. That vote suggests majority support for the proposal, though not unanimity. No committee transcript is available here, so the record does not show detailed floor debate or stakeholder testimony.
The main point of contention is likely the policy tradeoff between encouraging accessory apartments and preserving the strength of the affordable housing appeals law. Supporters may view the bill as recognizing accessory apartments as a meaningful part of a municipality’s housing stock and as a way to reward communities that allow more housing options. Opponents may argue that counting unrestricted accessory apartments toward the exemption threshold could let municipalities qualify for relief from 8-30g without actually increasing the supply of deed-restricted affordable housing, potentially weakening incentives to produce housing affordable to lower-income households.
Impact
This bill would amend Connecticut General Statutes section 8-30g(k) by expanding the types of dwelling units counted when determining whether a municipality qualifies for exemption from the affordable housing appeals procedure. Specifically, accessory apartments would be included in the 10% threshold calculation even if they are not subject to affordability restrictions, and a prior limitation excluding certain accessory apartments built or permitted after January 1, 2022 would be removed. This change could increase the number of municipalities eligible for exemption and reduce the number of development applications subject to the 8-30g appeals process.
Sentiment
The available voting history indicates generally favorable sentiment toward the bill in committee, with a 13-5 Joint Favorable Substitute vote in the Housing Committee. That suggests the proposal had clear majority support, likely from members who favor expanding housing supply measures or adjusting the exemption formula to reflect accessory apartments. The absence of transcript excerpts limits insight into broader stakeholder views, but the vote margin indicates the bill was not broadly unanimous and likely drew some skepticism.
Contention
The central controversy is whether unrestricted accessory apartments should count toward a municipality’s 10% affordable housing threshold for exemption from the appeals procedure. Supporters likely argue that accessory apartments are a legitimate housing type that increases density and should help municipalities qualify for relief. Critics likely contend that counting market-rate accessory apartments dilutes the purpose of 8-30g, because the exemption would be based in part on units that are not actually affordable to low- and moderate-income residents. The disagreement is therefore between using accessory apartments as a housing-supply incentive versus preserving a stricter affordability standard for exemption.